If the NHL made a realistic proposal like the lockout would be ended shortly after but what you are forgetting is that Bettman and the owners are doing this to renege on the contracts they signed and offered in the first place

This and the proposals that each side has tabled that are touted as "50/50" are not 50/50 right out of the gate. Which is why there is fault on both sides.

From the Ottawa Sun. A particularly troubling line in a story about time running out on the league imposed deadline...

Although I doubt it's a case of Bettman being "allowed" to do anything, it's still very disconcerting that the League may not be willing to concede anything more to the players to get a deal done...

Although, two lines before that, Daly seems to indicate that the league will still bargain over the most recent proposal, which indicates some concessions could still be made.

And yes, I realize that the "League sources" are unnamed, so take the story with your preferred amount of salt...

if the part about bettman not being allowed to offer up anymore conecessions is true, that kind of blows the whole "it's all bettman's fault" theory out of the water. it would mean that the owners are actually calling the shots unlike what some people around here want to believe.

if the part about bettman not being allowed to offer up anymore conecessions is true, that kind of blows the whole "it's all bettman's fault" theory out of the water. it would mean that the owners are actually calling the shots unlike what some people around here want to believe.

OMFG! NO WAY! THAT LITTLE MIDGET DWARF UNCLE GARY CAN BURN IN HELL!!!!

if the part about bettman not being allowed to offer up anymore conecessions is true, that kind of blows the whole "it's all bettman's fault" theory out of the water. it would mean that the owners are actually calling the shots unlike what some people around here want to believe.

It certainly is interesting to consider, but I'm not sure I buy it, to be honest. Bettman only needs 8 votes in his favor to ensure he isn't overruled, for the "Bettman's fault" theory to not be true, he would need 23 owners against him to force his hand. And since we already know that Jacobs (Boston), Leipold (Minnesota), Edwards (Calgary) and Leonsis (Washington) are solidly in Bettman's camp as well as the League-Owned Coyotes, that leaves Bettman only needing 3 votes to ensure that he gets the final say on the League's stance.

My best guess? Bettman has more than 8 owners in his court, but their support very well could be conditional on him doing everything he can to completely break the PA, and force them into only a deal of the League's offering.

“Players were calling to ask about the offer,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told the Star in an email. “We let clubs answer their questions. . . . We did authorize club executives to respond substantively to player inquiries.”

This and the proposals that each side has tabled that are touted as "50/50" are not 50/50 right out of the gate. Which is why there is fault on both sides.

What I was trying to say in your hypothetical proposal representing the NHL, you would pay contracts already signed but that is the purpose of the lockout in the first place and the ultimate goal for the NHL. To renege on contracts the owners signed and offered in the first place.

That confuses me. I wasn't aware it was a league-sanctioned gag order that the owners couldn't talk to the players.

I had assumed that was commonplace, especially after the League slapped Jimmy D with a $250k fine for speaking out. The League hired Bettman to be their mouthpiece and chief negotiator. If the Owners are spreading the message instead of Bettman, it undermines his position as League spokesman, and makes it less likely that everyone stays "on message".

Plus, if the owners and players were allowed to speak without League supervision/approval, then you could see the more moderate owners and players working together to oppose the official League stance. That is the LAST thing Bettman wants at this point.

How would you suggest they go about getting to 50/50 right out of the gate AND honoring of all current contracts at the same time? (which you say you are in favor of)

Let me know when you have the league financial records. I have some ideas, but I have no idea if they would work or not in the current system without having someone who is a league financial expert. I could speculate, but I want to avoid that right now. Without a firm grasp on the financials, no one really knows if the ideas would work or not.

What I was trying to say in your hypothetical proposal representing the NHL, you would pay contracts already signed but that is the purpose of the lockout in the first place and the ultimate goal for the NHL. To renege on contracts the owners signed and offered in the first place.

Yup, I get what you are asking. There are ways around that with the right deal in place.

Let me know when you have the league financial records. I have some ideas, but I have no idea if they would work or not in the current system without having someone who is a league financial expert. I could speculate, but I want to avoid that right now. Without a firm grasp on the financials, no one really knows if the ideas would work or not.

Yup, I get what you are asking. There are ways around that with the right deal in place.

You know we have crossed into the twilight zone when pure speculation by opinionated writers is being touted by the fans of the NHLPA as fact. I suppose the lack of information really does give way to drawing your own conclusions.

Carry on!

Consider me a league financial expert.....what's your idea?

Haha, fair enough.

Take existing contracts and lengthen them out so the money is paid out over a longer number of years. Every penny is paid out, but in a longer term, with interest.Make owners pay out of their own pockets or by the teams as a whole to pay the players up front for the decrease in salary. So if it goes from 57% to 50%, then the owners have to pay those salaries out and they don't count towards the cap.

Just a couple ideas that I am sure will be bitched at, shot down, or otherwise dismissed by the NHLPA fans here. I have others, but the point is that everything is negotiable and the right deal can be made.

You know we have crossed into the twilight zone when pure speculation by opinionated writers is being touted by the fans of the NHLPA as fact. I suppose the lack of information really does give way to drawing your own conclusions.

Carry on!

Haha, fair enough.

Take existing contracts and lengthen them out so the money is paid out over a longer number of years. Every penny is paid out, but in a longer term, with interest.Make owners pay out of their own pockets or by the teams as a whole to pay the players up front for the decrease in salary. So if it goes from 57% to 50%, then the owners have to pay those salaries out and they don't count towards the cap.

Just a couple ideas that I am sure will be bitched at, shot down, or otherwise dismissed by the NHLPA fans here. I have others, but the point is that everything is negotiable and the right deal can be made.

Let me know when you have the league financial records. I have some ideas, but I have no idea if they would work or not in the current system without having someone who is a league financial expert. I could speculate, but I want to avoid that right now. Without a firm grasp on the financials, no one really knows if the ideas would work or not.

My thinking is, that if it was at all possible, then it would have happened by now.

I mean, wasn't that the entire point of the players union putting out the "3rd" proposal for an immediate 50/50 division, if the owners would honor all contracts? To show everyone that while technically possible, it would require the owners to take a hit themselves, which we know would never happen, and they proved would never happened by dismissing the offer, quite literally, immediately upon it being presented to them.

My thinking is, that if it was at all possible, then it would have happened by now.

I mean, wasn't that the entire point of the players union putting out the "3rd" proposal for an immediate 50/50 division, if the owners would honor all contracts? To show everyone that while technically possible, it would require the owners to take a hit themselves, which we know would never happen, and they proved would never happened by dismissing the offer, quite literally, immediately upon it being presented to them.

Once again, the 50/50 split the union and league touted was not a true 50/50 split. You can read both proposals that have been posted here.

Maybe over time would be the best way to get to that split. I have no idea since I am not a league financial expert.

Take existing contracts and lengthen them out so the money is paid out over a longer number of years. Every penny is paid out, but in a longer term, with interest.Make owners pay out of their own pockets or by the teams as a whole to pay the players up front for the decrease in salary. So if it goes from 57% to 50%, then the owners have to pay those salaries out and they don't count towards the cap.

Just a couple ideas that I am sure will be bitched at, shot down, or otherwise dismissed by the NHLPA fans here. I have others, but the point is that everything is negotiable and the right deal can be made.

Lengthen them out, meaning existing players have to play even longer before going to Free Agency? The PA will burn that to the ground faster than the Hindenburg. Oh the humanity...

Now, if you mean that a player on a 5 year contract gets 100 % of the contract over 7 years, but still becomes a Free Agent in 5 years, then I think the Owners would burn that down fas... well, you get the idea...

Also, there's no way the owners would pay the decrease in salaries up front. The whole idea of their side of the argument is to not have to pay the players what they're contractually owed. What makes you think the owners would agree to pay them what they're contractually owed when they took a grand total of 15 minutes to reject a proposal that would pay the players what they're contractually owed?